Ceasar v. Harris

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED
JUN 22 2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
R. CEASAR, ) Court for the District of Columbia
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1564 (UNA)
)
SCOTT HARRIS, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), ECF No. 2, and the Complaint and Motion to Compel, ECF
No. 1. The IFP motion will be granted, and this case will be dismissed.
Plaintiff has sued the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court in his official capacity.
In addition to injunctive relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages. See Compl. at 3. The
Supreme Court “has inherent [and exclusive] supervisory authority over its Clerk.” In re Marin,
956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Therefore, “a lower court may [not] compel
the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.” Id.; see Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171
n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) (“It seems axiomatic that a lower court
may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action.”).
In addition, “the Supreme Court Clerk and Clerk’s office staff enjoy absolute immunity
from a lawsuit for money damages based upon decisions falling within the scope of their official
duties.” Miller v. Harris, 599 Fed. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (citing Sindram v.
Suda, 986 F.2d 1459 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam)); see Reddy v. O’Connor, 520 F. Supp. 2d
1
124, 130 (D.D.C. 2007) (actions consisting of the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari and
the Deputy Clerk’s refusal to file documents concerning a subsequent petition “are
quintessentially ‘judicial’ in nature because they are ‘an integral part of the judicial process’”)
(quoting Sindram, 986 F.2d at 1460-61). Therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.
See Fletcher v. Harris, 790 Fed. App’x 220 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“The district court correctly denied
appellant’s motion for injunction and dismissed the case with prejudice, because appellant’s
claim for money damages against the Clerk of the Supreme Court was barred by absolute
immunity.”). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATE: June 22, 2020
2